It appears that the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade on 23.08.1971 in V.K. Higher Secondary School Kursi Khera, Kanpur Dehat. The approval was granted vide order dated 17.01.1978. It appears that the petitioner has been paid salary treating his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in CT Grade.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 16.10.1995 fixing the petitioner's salary in CT Grade and for the mandamus to the respondents to pay salary of LT Grade w.e.f. 21.05.1978.
The contention of the petitioner is that the approval of his services has been granted by District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 17.01.1978, by which the temporary appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade w.e.f. 01.12.1977 to 20.05.1978. On the strength of the aforesaid approval letter, the petitioner is claiming that since the approval of appointment as LT Grade teacher has been granted, therefore, he is entitled for the salary of LT Grade.
The respondent has filed the counter affidavit. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the institution is recognized and aided institution upto the High School level. The provisions of Education Act, 1921 and Payment of Salary Act, 1971 are applicable for payment of salary to the employee of the institution. The petitioner was appointed as LT Grade teacher on which he has worked as ad-hoc teacher from 01.12.1977 to 20.05.1978. Subsequently, by order dated 21.10.1978 the services of the petitioner was regularized on CT Grade scale and in compliance of the order, the petitioner has been paid salary of CT Grade from 21.05.1978. In para 10 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the services of the petitioner was approved for CT Grade, at the time of creation of post dated 09.11.1977 at the time of taking the institution in grant-in-aid. Before taking the institution on the grant-in-aid list, the manager of the institution concealing the material got the approval dated 17.01.1978 for LT Grade in favour of the petitioner which was subsequently, modified by the Director by his order dated 21.03.1978. In para 11 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that against the petitioner a criminal case no.05 of 1983 under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC was registered. The petitioner was suspended. By the trial court the petitioner has been awarded rigorous imprisonment and in appeal Sessions Court vide order dated 21.09.1991 awarded the punishment for one year and since the disciplinary proceeding was pending, the petitioner was not entitled for the selection grade or promotion grade. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2002. The entire salary has been paid and there is no outstanding dues. The copy of the letter dated 21.10.1978 issued by the Assistant Up Shiksha Nideshak Madhyamik has been enclosed to show that the petitioner was permanent Assistant Teacher on CT Grade. The direction has been given to pay salary of CT Grade.
Heard Sri A.N.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as LT Grade Teacher for which approval has been granted by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 17.01.1978 and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for the salary of LT Grade.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the writ petition, the petitioner has concealed the material fact. She submitted that the petitioner was inadvertantly granted the approval vide order dated 19.01.1978 for LT Grade while his appointment has been sanctioned for CT Grade. Initially his services was temporary which has been subsequently regularized. The petitioner's services has been regularized in the year 1978 on the post of CT Grade and since 1978 the petitioner was getting salary of CT Grade Teacher. No objection whatsoever has been raised by the petitioner in the year 1978. The order of 1995, which has been challenged in the present writ petition relates to the fixation of the salary. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner can not be accepted at this stage.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Even if the claim of the petitioner that by order dated 17.01.1978 passed by District Inspector of Schools his appointment as LT Grade was approved but the said appointment was only temporary. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners' services has been regularized w.e.f. 20.05.1978 in CT Grade and the petitioner was getting the salary of CT Grade Teacher, since then and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to claim by filing the writ petition in the year 1995 that the petitioner was entitled for the salary of LT Grade. The order of the regularization of the petitioners' services in CT Grade has not been challenged. In the circumstances, it is highly belated to address the grievance claiming salary of LT Grade.
In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Dated : 03.08.2012.
R./